mrshowrules:GoldSpider: mrshowrules: It means that comparing the US with other industrialized countries in terms of gun control makes more sense than making comparisons between US States when guns/people move freely from State-to-State.

That comparison could only work if the US only had one set of federal gun laws.

Effectively in terms of gun purchases, the US has only one set of gun laws (the laws of the most lenient States). I've never heard of people turning their guns back over when they move States.

Same with alcohol, sex toys, gasoline fueled equipment, etc.

Time for all of us to adopt Utah's liquor laws since people can just go from NV to UT with high percentage beer and less taxed liquor.

People in MS, GA, TN, etc. can all go to AL with their various sex toys in contravention of state law.

Rinse and repeat with pseudo ephedrine or the myriad things that california bans or restricts that are not similarly banned or restricted in other states.

Perhaps we should just simply force all states to have Vermont, Maine or New Hampshire's gun laws since they work so well in those states.

JustGetItRight: Wayne 985: Selling an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine without so much as a background check doesn't put society at risk?

Not really, no. Despite what the media would have you believe, rifles of all kinds are used in roughly 300 murders a year. They're way, way, way down on the list of most deadly weapons. If you specifically target AR style, you're basically into the 'various other items' category.

Isn't restricting an assault weapon - or whatever term you prefer - using the same rationale we use to restrict something like a grenade launcher? Crimes using such a weapon are exceedingly rare, but when they do happen, they're extreme. Semi-automatic rifles also seem to be used disproportionately in attacks on children in these gun massacres, which are happening more frequently even as overall gun violence decreases.

Anyway, like I said, I'm in favor of background checks across the board and restriction of high capacity magazines/clips across the board as well. The AR is just a specific example I'm using.

You want to save lives? How about doing a background check at a car dealership and not selling a car to someone with a DUI conviction.

I'd probably be okay with that, depending on the circumstances of the individual cases. (Drunk out of your mind in a residential area vs slightly buzzed on a back country road, etc). Circumstances should probably apply to felons owning guns too. I'm not so concerned about an ex-con owning a pistol if he served time for embezzlement, for example.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwisedispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing orhaving reasonable cause to believe that such person -(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any courtof, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding oneyear;(2) is a fugitive from justice;(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlledsubstance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled SubstancesAct (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has beencommitted to any mental institution;(5) who, being an alien -(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has beenadmitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (asthat term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigrationand Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));(6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces underdishonorable conditions;(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, hasrenounced his citizenship;(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person fromharassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of suchperson or child of such intimate partner or person, or engagingin other conduct that would place an intimate partner inreasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, exceptthat this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person receivedactual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity toparticipate; and(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents acredible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partneror child; or(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempteduse, or threatened use of physical force against such intimatepartner or child that would reasonably be expected to causebodily injury; or(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime ofdomestic violence.This subsection shall not apply with respect to the sale ordisposition of a firearm or ammunition to a licensed importer,licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector whopursuant to subsection (b) of section 925 of this chapter is notprecluded from dealing in firearms or ammunition, or to a personwho has been granted relief from disabilities pursuant tosubsection (c) of section 925 of this chapter.

Time for all of us to adopt Utah's liquor laws since people can just go from NV to UT with high percentage beer and less taxed liquor.

People in MS, GA, TN, etc. can all go to AL with their various sex toys in contravention of state law.

First they came for my guns, and I was like, screw it, I've never had to shoot anyone. Then they came for my beer, and I was like, screw it, I need to stop drinking. Then they came for my Fleshlight and I was like, hold the fark on! Ain't gonna happen.

GoldSpider:mrshowrules: Effectively in terms of gun purchases, the US has only one set of gun laws (the laws of the most lenient States). I've never heard of people turning their guns back over when they move States.

Even if your assumption was representative of reality, the gun violence statistics of lenient vs. restrictive states would be roughly equal. Since that's not the case, I'm dying to know what you believe motivates so many people to move guns from lenient to restrictive states with the intent of using it to commit a crime.

I would assume the violence is correlated to poverty, education and urban density. The guns flow to the violent places and just make things worse. Any negative societal policy will typically and disproportionally impact those populations which are already farked up.

Chicago enacting local gun control laws is just a futile act of desperation. Gun control in general will have little short term affect. It will take at least a generation to see meaningful reductions in violence. Look at Australia as a good example of what can happen. It is primarily about shifting the gun culture. The compromise proposed if shifting it to responsible gun ownership as opposed to a free for all..

Time for all of us to adopt Utah's liquor laws since people can just go from NV to UT with high percentage beer and less taxed liquor.

People in MS, GA, TN, etc. can all go to AL with their various sex toys in contravention of state law.

First they came for my guns, and I was like, screw it, I've never had to shoot anyone. Then they came for my beer, and I was like, screw it, I need to stop drinking. Then they came for my Fleshlight and I was like, hold the fark on! Ain't gonna happen.

THEN, they came for the non-CARB approved generator powerrin my porn shack and no one was left to speak up.

pedrop357:Wayne 985: I'm sorry that you can't look at a school filled with the bodies of dead children and think, "Gee, maybe a couple tighter restrictions might be worth it."

My whole worldview isn't shaped entirely on how I feel about something. Other factors matter, other people's rights, logic, long term analysis, history, etc. all should factor in.

Yeah, exactly. Other people have the right not to be shot to death while they're going to school and a long-term, considerate analysis would suggest that a background check alone would help tremendously.

Your "right" not to be inconvenienced with a five-minute electronic check is trumped by people's basic right to life.

Joe Blowme:Wayne 985: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Wayne 985: Your rights are not absolute. You can't use freedom of speech to commit slander and you shouldn't be able to have an assault weapon with a 50-round magazine without even undergoing a background check. Man up and take responsibility.

That's a horrible comparison. Slander causes harm to someone, that's why it's a crime. Merely owning a weapon harms nobody. If we were to apply your thought process to the first amendment, we would have to pass background checks before engaging in any social activity in which speech might be used.

Selling an AR-15 with a 50-round magazine without so much as a background check doesn't put society at risk?

A risk freedom and liberty loving people gladly take, like driving on the roads (which likk more per year than guns). Some speech can put society at risk too, do we need background checks for every time you post on FARK? Which rights do we restrict for your peace of mind?

pedrop357:Taking these to an extreme, we would see that the left in this country would do what it could to force us all into dense cities while stripping those in the city of their firearm rights. Work it a bit and you can really infringe upon most people's right to own guns by basically giving them no choice but to live in a city.

I took the opportunity to examine the site that you referenced; the site allows customers to arrange firearm purchases for pick-up at a physical store. It in no way allows customers to order firearms for delivery to their homes, and your comparison of that website to such a delivery service is demonstrably false.

Fair enough. Dittyderpers comparison of just about anything is demonstrably false. You see he treadshiats anything that has to do with guns. He desperately does anything he can to derail the conversation.

Wait: What I said is true, what you said is false, but I'm the one at fault?

*REALLY*?

If you did not advocate a position that he opposes, he would not have had to issue poorly researched claims that were easily disproved.

Yeah, nobody likes it when you fark with the narrative they've emotionally invested themselves in.

I'm not emotionally invested in anything. In fact I am pro 2nd amendment. I just happen to feel that most other pro gun guys are farking retarded. Yes bringing up mail order guns in 1950 is farking retarded. The 1950 people try to cite never existed and even if it did comparing it with today is useless.

Here's how you guys work.

Step1) I notice the article talks about the gun violence rate dropping in the last 20 years. I then not the Brady act was signed about 20 years ago. I suggest that maybe its not a total coincidence. I back that up with a few citations. Mostly pointing out that the NICS got started in 1998 due to the Brady Act. From 1998-2009 1.9 million gun purchases were denied.

Step2) Someone ignores everything I said and derps about mail order guns in the 50's. Because face it, none of you bullet counters will ever admit that just maybe a lot of violent crime was prevented or the damage minimized due to those 1.9 million denials.

Step3) I take the bait and show you can still do that

Step4)derr herr, he thinks mail order in the 50's is the same as today, derr herr.

I'd love to see you guys actually try to articulate why you think background checks are so bad. But you wont do it honestly. You will talk about anything else to change the subject. Todays distraction is mail order guns and that big ol dummy sammyk.

Let me try a fewv simple questions.

Do you think the 100 million plus background checks performed per the Brady act have prevented crimes and saved peoples lives?

Have a single one of those background checks infringed on anyones rights?

mrshowrules:I would assume the violence is correlated to poverty, education and urban density. The guns flow to the violent places and just make things worse. Any negative societal policy will typically and disproportionally impact those populations which are already farked up.

The solution would then be to fix those areas. The shiatty existence and all the problems that guns supposedly make worse ARE STILL THERE.

I guess it's OK for people to live in poverty and with the all bad things as long as those damned guns aren't there to make it even worse.

mrshowrules:Chicago enacting local gun control laws is just a futile act of desperation. Gun control in general will have little short term affect. It will take at least a generation to see meaningful reductions in violence.

Their little experiment in sweeping gun control lasted about a generation, just like DC. The results were far worse for those areas than the rest of the country which was seeing a generation long reduction of gun control laws.

mrshowrules:Look at Australia as a good example of what can happen. It is primarily about shifting the gun culture. The compromise proposed if shifting it to responsible gun ownership as opposed to a free for all..

What happened in Australia that did not happen in New Zealand?

Putting your hand waving away of the root of the overall violence problem together with your desire to shiftithe gun culture and it becomes obvious you don't care about people suffering as much you care about getting rid guns. This kind of thinking is at the heart of so many gun control-for-the-sake-of-gun-control proposals and is reprehensible.

CPennypacker:People_are_Idiots: Tomahawk513: People_are_Idiots: udhq: pdee: But that aside, suicides still count as part of the gun death total because in the absence of the gun, it's substantially less likely the person would have successfully committed suicide.

I thought the left was all for euthanasia. I would think that would make access to a gun a right they would protect. Guns are a messy way to go but they fast, painless and relatively sure.

Euthanasia does not mean treating depression with a bullet to the head.

80% of suicide attempts occur within an hour of initial ideation. That means their success or failure is often dependent upon finding a convenient means that is immediately available. Forcing them to go even a little out of their way--such as with a waiting period--is often enough of a deterrent. Every minute longer you make a suicidal person wait, you increase their chances of survival.

Or they just find another easy method. Hanging is easy, so is slitting the wrists, ODing on OTC medicine, so on so forth. Guns are convenient, but a person willing to off themselves can easily do so with a trip to the drug or hardware store.

I would suggest you read upthread a bit. While you're correct that a person could use a different method, those methods are significantly, even exponentially less lethal.

If you catch it in time. I had a friend who almost ODed on OTC sleeping meds (he really had trouble sleeping on a ship, soo...), which (in reply to another person) didnot induce vomitting... Also had another that ODed on her meds AS a suicide, and did die within minutes. Typically, even slitting the wrists, if not told about, can be quite fatal in but 10-15 minutes. Still time to rescue, but boy... you better hope 911 doesn't put you on hold.

/did read somewhere typical way out for women was meds, men were guns.

Part of a suicide assessment is access to means, and access to a gun is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay at the top of that list.

Not if you live in a place with 5 drug stores, and no access to guns silly.

Wayne 985:So is selling to a felon, but it happens anyway because our background check system is filled with holes. I'm advocating plugging them.

If you didn't have Cuomo, Feinstein, Bloomberg, and even Obama prior to his seeking the presidency advocating for things like a ban of entire classes of firearms, the outright confiscation of guns, arbitrary magazine limits, and a ton of other things that do nothing but further their anti-gun agenda you could get improved background checks.

The State of New York and the Mayor of New York City did far more to kill the senate bill than the NRA could ever possibly have accomplished.

Wayne 985:pedrop357: Wayne 985: I'm sorry that you can't look at a school filled with the bodies of dead children and think, "Gee, maybe a couple tighter restrictions might be worth it."

My whole worldview isn't shaped entirely on how I feel about something. Other factors matter, other people's rights, logic, long term analysis, history, etc. all should factor in.

Yeah, exactly. Other people have the right not to be shot to death while they're going to school and a long-term, considerate analysis would suggest that a background check alone would help tremendously.

Your "right" not to be inconvenienced with a five-minute electronic check is trumped by people's basic right to life.

That kinda hinges on you managing to demonstrate that universal background checks would really make a significant difference - you might notice that it wouldn't have made the slightest difference to any of the recent high profile shootings. All the guns used for those were either bought from a dealer and were background checked or they were stolen.

Last time I checked, most of the guns acquired by criminals came through straw purchases (illegal but hard to stop if the purchaser doesn't act like an idiot) and black market dealers.

Only about 1.7% come from sources where universal background checks might make a difference.

I actually know someone who went and got his NYS pistol permit because he kept getting rejected by NICS even though he was eligible to purchase firearms. He had once been arrested but the charges were dropped (he happened to be hanging out with some guys who had burglarized a home earlier in the day when the police arrived, but he wasn't involved).

He accounts for at least 5 or 10 of those initial denials (even though he got the guns eventually). He got the pistol permit, which requires a *MUCH* more rigorous background check, largely because it meant he wouldn't need a NICS check to buy a gun.

In the mean time, though, every single time he tried to buy a gun he would get an initial denial, and he'd have to contact NICS, and they'd do the extra checking and find out it was OK for him, but they never seemed to correct the actual problem.

JustGetItRight:The State of New York and the Mayor of New York City did far more to kill the senate bill than the NRA could ever possibly have accomplished.

Yep. But don't forget Andrew "confiscation is an option" Cuomo.

The best part of that, though, is due to the New York SAFE Act, Governor of the State of New York is the highest elected office he will ever hold.

There is *NO* way he would survive the primary process for the presidency, and if he managed that by some political wizardry, the *ONLY* way the Republicans could screw it up is by running someone like Chris Christie.

And I've just finished my milk:clkeagle: Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.

Actually, the point worth considering is how much the actions of the gun control crowd contribute to the failure to prevent these mass homicides, because they are so quick to leap on these incidents as opportunities to try and emotionally blackmail their way to new legislation they drown out meaningful discussion.

If the debate following Newtown had been about whether we are doing enough to understand the causes of these tragedies so we can identify and intervene before someone's mind becomes so utterly broken they decide to kill schoolkids we could actually have arrived at some beneficial change. Perhaps an education program to better help parents and teachers spot the warning signs that differentiate normal teenage behaviour from something more serious.

Instead, the gun control bandwagon gets rolling, using this event to promote legislation that wouldn't actually have prevented it. Then the pro-gun crowd respond in kind and we as a country go nowhere.

Sir, this is Fark. This sort of meaningful, insightful comment has no place here.

No gun owner with a shred of humanity wants these tragedies to keep occurring, but doing anything that effects the vast law abiding majority, without a meaningful reason or without much chance of success, is intolerable.

Quit demonizing the law abiding gun owner and come up with a comprehensive policy that really works while protecting valuable rights. And quit passing ridiculous laws in the aftermath of tragedy. It makes you look like fools and causes gun owners to dig in their heels. The problem has taken some time to develop and it will take a while to solve. Will people die in the meantime. Yes. Unavoidable, but it can be fixed.

So is selling to a felon, but it happens anyway because our background check system is filled with holes. I'm advocating plugging them.

You can't declare something a crime and then refuse to provide even basic enforcement.

That's how most criminal laws work. There's no way to actively prevent most crimes without creating a police state, they're only enforced when the criminal is caught doing some else (more heinous and/or obvious) and tacked on to the list of charges by the prosecutor.

Hypothetically speaking, if universal background checks were mandated tomorrow how would that be enforced? You might force sales that happen through private sellers at gun shows and through backpage.com to get background checked, but when a black market gun dealer is selling to criminals it won't make a bit of difference.

Most people privately selling guns are pretty strongly interested in making sure the sale remains on the up and up. They usually want to make a bill of sale, see the buyer's drivers license, and preferably their CCW (proof they can pass a background check), because nobody wants a gun used in a crime getting traced to them and if it is they want to have something to show that it's not theirs any more.

That's probably why only 1.7% of the guns used by criminals come through that kind of sale.

Conversely, a black market dealer is already operating illegally and doesn't care if their business is made a bit more illegal.

ArmagedDan:sammyk: ArmagedDan: clkeagle: sammyk: Good. Now lets see if we can do a better job of keeping crazy people from having guns, and felons too. As long as we keep having mass killings we are going to keep having the gun control debate. Just because we have made progress on gun violence doesn't mean we can just throw our hands up in the air and accept the tragedies we keep reliving.

Done in two. Individual homicides by people with their backgrounds checked? Sad, but it's the price of living of a gun-owning society.Mass homicides by people who had no business touching those weapons in the first place? Those deaths might have been prevented if not for the "don't grab muh gunz" crowd.

I would agree, if only those in charge of drafting legislation would stop using it as a platform for grabbing guns from the wrong people. Often while admitting that it's their true goal. The problem is that our attempts to solve the problem are hijacked by those with an agenda.

What would really create great strides in reducing gun crime is to actually prosecute people who lie on their 4473 form. It's a felony, and yet only an insignificant proportion are ever busted over it.

A felon or other barred individual just lied to try and buy a gun, and nobody's interested in following up on that!? Lanza was rejected a week before sandy hook. And yet we are told there is neither the time nor the interest in enforcing the existing law.

No, we have to strip the property of millions of law abiding Americans instead. Because lord knows THAT's cheap, fast and constitutionally sound.

/rant over

Where do you paranoid freaks get this shiat? No one is seriosly talking about confiscating guns. Hell even the proponents of another assault weapons ban have all but admitted defeat and have changed focus to trying to expand background checks. rants like yours are why people call you "gun nuts"

Senator Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picki ...

There are always going to be people that actually do want to end private gun ownership. There are always going to be politicians that say stupid things on the campaign trail. The states are going to do what the states are going to do. If you actually pay attention to our current political climate you should understand they are not going to get anywhere.

Checks and balances, how do they farking work?

Where you go off the rails into "nut" territory is when you just avoid what I was talking about(effectiveness of background checks) and go an an admitted rant about gun confiscation.

JesseL:That kinda hinges on you managing to demonstrate that universal background checks would really make a significant difference - you might notice that it wouldn't have made the slightest difference to any of the recent high profile shootings. All the guns used for those were either bought from a dealer and were background checked or they were stolen.

Yeah, that's part of the problem.

Cho was able to pass both background checks and successfully complete both handgun purchases after he presented to the gun dealers his U.S. permanent residency card, his Virginia driver's permit to prove legal age and length of Virginia residence and a checkbook showing his Virginia address, in addition to waiting the required 30-day period between each gun purchase. He was successful at completing both handgun purchases because he did not disclose on the background questionnaire that a Virginia court had ordered him to undergo outpatient treatment at a mental health facility.[81][82][83]Link

Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. If the background checks had actually been fleshed out and picked up on a thing like this, those people would still be alive.

Background checks as they stand are a joke. They need to dig deeper and they need to be universal. You literally just admitted that a lot of these massacres take place because the law doesn't do much to stop them... Then complain when people try and fix that by closing loopholes and tightening standards.

pedrop357:Wayne 985: See above. Not having to wait for a background check is not an "essential liberty."

A right delayed is a right denied.

Also, how do you feel about background checks on prospective voters or to obtain online accounts necessary to post in forums?

You, uh... You realize that you're legally bound to register before you can vote, right? Jesus.

sammyk:There are always going to be people that actually do want to end private gun ownership. There are always going to be politicians that say stupid things on the campaign trail. The states are going to do what the states are going to do. If you actually pay attention to our current political climate you should understand they are not going to get anywhere.

Checks and balances, how do they farking work?

Checks and balances work by people actually doing some checking and balancing. Ignoring the extremists like Feinstein is not an option.